Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
Obama Wire Taps Trump >

Obama Wire Taps Trump

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

Obama Wire Taps Trump

Old 03-08-2017, 06:33 AM
  #31  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 5,994
Default

Originally Posted by Bob H in NH View Post
RE Alsatian: What's in it for Obama/Clinton now that Clinton lost? Simple, neither can accept that the plan failed.


Obama's is an easier ready. His "legacy" is up for grabs, Trump's stated goals dismantle much of what he would stake his "greatness" on. If Trump succeeds, removes much of it and things improve and our country gets better, then Obama is a miserable failure. However if Trump fails trying to undo-Obama, then well clearly it's because Obama policies were just awesome. Sadly.


Hillary is a bit tougher and longer plan. She NEEDS Trump to fail miserably. She's been VERY quiet since November. She's sitting in the wings waiting and hoping for 4 years of hell, where she can ride in on her white pants-suit and rescue the world. Or she's easing into retirement, only time will tell.

I think Hillary Clinton is used up. She is just too tired, too old, too yesterday. She will never hold high office in the government of the US again. I hear someone has proposed her for Mayor of New York. She could possibly win that. Would she want to? Isn't that a big step down from US Senator and Secretary of State?


Obama is young and may indeed be a "true believer." By that I mean he may be politically sincere and be dedicating himself to achieving principled political ends. Note that his principled ends are not ends or principles I support, but that doesn't change the analysis. There are bad principles and undesirable ends. If Trumpism succeeds, then Obama's vision is dead: he will never achieve his principled ends. For that reason, yes, Obama devotely wishes for Trump to fall flat on his face. Democrats, to the extent they remain dedicated to their politics of Obama years (grievance politics, identity politics, narrow special interest group politics, open borders), need Trump to fall flat on his face.


So far, however, these things don't seem to be working for the anti-Trump folks. He hasn't fallen to a knee yet. And his counter-punching is beginning to take effect. Those who count Trump out are foolish. For example, it looks to me like Trump may be rounding the corner on this "Russian election interference" attack and further that whole orchestration is threatening to fall back heavily upon those who built it -- the media and the CIA.


People don't seem to have noticed an important puzzle piece. The whole "Russian election interference" issue hinges on the notion that Russia did, in fact, interfere in our election. What is the evidence that Russia interfered in our election? The only thing I have heard -- and I heard it quite early on -- was that the hacked DNC emails exhibited "fingerprints" of Russian hacking tools. This opinion -- the DNC emails exhibited fingerprints of Russian hacking tools -- came from someone in the CIA, I think someone who is named and is known, maybe the director of CIA. This, so far, has been taken as determinative and probative bedrock information. I am a patent agent. I write patent applications. I have written a number of patent applications on cyber security tools. In my judgment, based on knowledge and study, it is no easy task to identify a hacker. I want to characterize that further. I'm saying that it is like decrypting a message. I don't care how GOOD you are, if you are going to decrypt a well encrypted message there is no short cut. Get to work, because you just have to randomly try decryption keys till you hit the 1 out of 2^96 different possible encryption keys. Have a nice day, year, life solving that problem. It is a function of the math, not of "how good" the spooks are. All that can generally be said about the identity of a hacker is to infer from the hack what tools were used. And we see this is what has been said. From the get-go my view was that hacking tools move around a lot -- they get in the wild and anyone can use them. There is a short percolation cycle from the day one application of a new hacking tool and when that hacking tool gets distributed. Thus, in my view, attributing the DNC hack to the Russians because it is inferred the hack was perpetrated by Russian hacking tools embeds a dubious assumption: only the Russians have access to those "Russian hacking tools."


Now here is the overlooked bit of information. In the Wikileaks dump yesterday it was said that the Russian hacking tools HAD been released into the wild -- by unknown individuals or sources. If that is true, that really leaves no bedrock -- or even probability -- under the claim by the CIA that Russia hacked the DNC. This is the whole "Russia tampered in the US election and Donald Trump collaborated with them in their effort" issue. If the "Russian fingerprints on the hack" argument goes away, you tell me, what is left?


With reference to the second part of my allegation above -- this attack is about to rebound onto the attackers -- I think the story of wire taps is a case in point. That is going to be investigated. The newspapers themselves have stated their "informed sources" said the information came from wire taps. Now they are going to deny that there were wiretaps? Further, there are records of requests for wiretaps to be approved. Some of these were refused, but that should be interesting reading to see the documentation in the requests. The FISA court refused, but who promoted the request in the first place? The news media stands to lose in this because they have pushed this story so unreservedly, so lacking in objective distance. If it all crumbles and goes away, I'm thinking that will look pretty bad for the news media. And I'm guessing Trump will definitely rub their noses in it. Would you put it past Trump to come out with a lengthy YouTube video laying out this scam that has been perpetrated on the American people, naming names of journalists and how they contributed willfully to the misinformation campaign? George Steppanapolis is on record saying Trump is lying to say that the media itself has printed that Trump was wire tapped. Possibly Trump himself was not directly wire tapped -- but if his campaign, his building, his team was wire tapped and that is witnessed in an article in the establishment media . . . then George is way wrong or is guilty of a crime worse than being mistaken, word smithing with the purpose to deceive and manipulate, which is the main attack on the establishment media: it would simply confirm again that allegation.

Last edited by Alsatian; 03-08-2017 at 06:56 AM.
Alsatian is offline  
Old 03-08-2017, 10:17 PM
  #32  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 17,327
Default

I think the media is in a very sticky situation. They were lied to by Obama's administration and ran with it. Now those sources are trying to twist the issues in the opposite direction. It's pretty hard for the media not to look like liars unless they burn their sources. They'd like to do that but can't for the simple reason that they would get frozen out of leaks and not have any "unnamed sources" to quote in the future.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 03-09-2017, 04:39 AM
  #33  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,325
Default

I agree Trump is starting to turn a corner:


- the accusations are starting to recycle and with no proof, they are becoming "old news" and people just don't care after a while. Honestly it will become the Benghazi of the Dems. Did bad things happen? Maybe, but people will simply get tired of hearing about it (yes BAD things happened with Benghazi, but again, people got tired of hearing about it because NOTHING happened to the people who caused it)


- the press is STARTING to feel the pressure. Trump is wearing them down and winning over the people. the press can either start to get a bit more open, or become even more irrelevant


For Clintons to "go away" they have to admit they lost and it's over. I don't think their ego can do so. Most ex-presidents can "go away" because there's no where else to go, they had the #1 job. Hillary was inches from it and had it snatched away. She may "fade" but push Chelsea, but the Clinton legacy isn't over
Bob H in NH is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.